I’m about to issue some modest new rules about distance education at Mason. I’m always uncomfortable with additional bureaucratic moves, so I take this opportunity to explain a bit. Also, the issues are interesting, and somewhat unexpected.
We’re working hard to expand distance offerings. We’ve added a lot of courses, mainly at the Masters level and in undergraduate general ed, and some whole programs, and the process will continue. For the most part what we’ve added has won solid enrollment. We’re careful about planning and testing the courses, and we pay attention to assessment at every step. New programs like the Bachelor of Applied Science, aimed at certain kinds of community college grads, look like they’ll be really useful. I’m modestly pleased with a small initiative, the Mason Global Passport program, that will offer a suite of three global courses to undergraduates internationally. And the list of what’s happened and what’s in the works can easily be expanded.
In the process we’ve developed increased technical capacity, thanks to important collaborations from the IT side, and have an increasingly competent faculty in the distance arena.
But here’s the problem, or at least one of the problems, that occasions my regulatory itch. It turns out that some faculty, probably not many, are de facto converting courses to a largely distance mode on their own, sometimes without telling anyone including, sometimes, their potential student audience. We’ve had students complain that they signed up for a course, thinking it was going to operate in standard mode, only to discover once they came to the first session that there would be only three classroom meetings the whole semester.
This, I regret to say, is unacceptable. Fairly soon my colleagues and I will be crafting a fatwa that any course with more than 25% distance delivery must be formally registered, with the relevant department and with my office, before it can operate. This is not intended to discourage innovation or experimentation. It is not intended to force all faculty to go through a single procedure to develop distance offerings.
But I think something like this rule is necessary for three reasons. First, and pretty obviously, a course that is substantially on line must be so described in the schedule of classes: students absolutely deserve to know what kind of class they’re taking. Since many clearly welcome some distance options, this should not discourage expansion of the genre.
Second, we must know about de facto distance options for sensible classroom use. We must be able to multiple-book classrooms for courses that intend only a few conventional meetings per semester.
And third, we must have some notion of distance options in order to assure appropriate assessment. I am fully on board with the finding that many distance courses are at least as effective, educationally, as conventional offerings, but we do need to gain experience in assessment, and that requires an accurate tally.
Again, regulation is not meant to discourage experimentation and various kinds of hybrid combinations. It is not intended to be onerous, and certainly we can adjust the details as we gain experience. But I think this is the right step in response to a somewhat unexpected problem.
This requires that registrar defines proper codes for partially on line courses and is willing to work with faculty to assign classrooms consistent with the needs in partially online courses. Up to now, this was not my expierience so I hope that your rules will not just affect faculty but also help us to deal with classroom assigments
I agree with Maria. This could be as simple as working with the registrar to make sure that these courses are properly labeled. These courses are very popular in my opinion, because they provide the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, my personal experience hasn’t been as beneficial as others. In my sophomore year, I took a course that allowed students to go to the class or watch them online as the school would videotape them (I’m not sure what this is technically called). All students had to take the tests online along with submitting papers.
I have found that going to an all distant education appeals to few students. It takes a certain level of personal responsibility to meet the demands. Often, I found my unorganized freshman mind unable to manage the various course commitments due to the fact that they often changed very quickly because of technological difficulties. I enjoyed the hybrid model much more.
What is more interesting to me is that the courses are generally given to undergraduates. I find that graduate students, especially PhD students would be more suitable to the environment. Many are older and have other obligations(family, other work, etc.). For these students, I believe a hybrid model that incorporates more online courses may be beneficial. Of course, we need to be able to find a model that incorporates discussion more easily. Many courses in graduate school are already small. They could be held on Skype, chat rooms, etc. Finally, I have noticed that graduate students are more willing to engage in online conversations than undergraduates. I would be interested in seeing if Mason brings more online classes to their graduate schools.